If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Mortimer had said ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

... you and the other English speaking posters would have a point. But she didn't say that. Alternatively, if Mortimer had said ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

... you and the other English speaking posters would have half a point. But she didn't say that either. What she did say, was ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

Which means something different again, and so you and the other English speaking posters do not have a point. If Mortimer had only seen one man the whole time she was at the door, she would have said so, and not bothered placing black bag man into a special category.

.[/I]

I realise that Caz has already answered this point (a point that we’ve all responded to at some point) but I’ll add one to your “But she she didn’t say that….” point. She also didn’t say “is saw a man that I’d seen previously,” or “I saw a Jewish looking man for the second time that night,” or “I saw a young Jewish man who I recognised as the man that I’d seen earlier,” or “I’m sure that the man that I saw walking along Berner Street was the same man that I’d seen earlier.”

So at the time of a murder, during a series of high profile murders, a woman sees a man with a black bag hurrying past the site of a murder but she doesn’t explicitly mention that she’d actually seen him twice. This is the problem with reading way too much into one word. It’s also worth noting that nowhere did the police ever mention her seeing him twice and nowhere in the various Press reports did they ever say that the man was seen by FM twice. And we know why. Because she clearly only saw Goldstein once.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

While the information we have suggests that Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, which would confirm the events Schwartz described but presumably refutes Schwartz's belief Pipeman and B.S. were a team (and that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, etc), if that suggestion is true it would also explain the statements in the press about how Schwartz's account might not be wholly believed by the police. Basically, the police believe Schwartz's statements with regards to the events, but not his statements about the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman or the intended target of B.S. Lipski. In short, they accepted his facts but did not accept his interpretation of them - so his statement was not wholly believed, but that means it was not wholly disbelieved either. I tend to think this division is what the "not wholly believed/relied upon" statement is in reference to. And if Pipeman was subsequently identified and interviewed, then the police's suspicions would be confirmed.

We get to the same above notion simply via the memo to HO as well, where the alternative explanation for Lipski is given. So identifying Pipeman isn't necessary to get there for the police to have doubts (alternate explanations they believe to be more likely) but a chat with Pipeman would be a way for them to confirm or refute those doubts.

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Yes it has to be a possibility that any doubt as to the Schwartz incident might simply have been a matter of a difference in interpretation between Schwartz and Pipeman with Abberline favouring the Schwartz version. I know that not everyone will agree but I don’t think that’s it’s so much of a long shot to suggest that a situation of drunken horseplay or even a non-threatening disagreement might have been misunderstood by a non-English speaker walking the streets around midnight and one who might even have been of a nervous disposition in the first place.

Obviously Abberline would have been aware of the clash between the ‘12.45’ of both FM and Schwartz and yet he went with the Schwartz version. Any police doubts might have been because they favoured FM and believed that the incident that Schwartz saw had occurred earlier in the evening taking into consideration estimated times of course?

[JeffHamm]

Fair point of course Jeff. As you say, the possibility at least exists that they did indeed locate Pipeman who confirmed Schwartz story.

Good luck with the pony Jeff.

Hi Herlock,

While the information we have suggests that Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, which would confirm the events Schwartz described but presumably refutes Schwartz's belief Pipeman and B.S. were a team (and that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, etc), if that suggestion is true it would also explain the statements in the press about how Schwartz's account might not be wholly believed by the police. Basically, the police believe Schwartz's statements with regards to the events, but not his statements about the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman or the intended target of B.S. Lipski. In short, they accepted his facts but did not accept his interpretation of them - so his statement was not wholly believed, but that means it was not wholly disbelieved either. I tend to think this division is what the "not wholly believed/relied upon" statement is in reference to. And if Pipeman was subsequently identified and interviewed, then the police's suspicions would be confirmed.

We get to the same above notion simply via the memo to HO as well, where the alternative explanation for Lipski is given. So identifying Pipeman isn't necessary to get there for the police to have doubts (alternate explanations they believe to be more likely) but a chat with Pipeman would be a way for them to confirm or refute those doubts.

- Jeff

[caz]

If Mortimer had said ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

... you and the other English speaking posters would have a point. But she didn't say that. Alternatively, if Mortimer had said ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

... you and the other English speaking posters would have half a point. But she didn't say that either. What she did say, was ...

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

Which means something different again, and so you and the other English speaking posters do not have a point. If Mortimer had only seen one man the whole time she was at the door, she would have said so, and not bothered placing black bag man into a special category.

What? Just before Fanny turned in, she noticed one person passing: the man who would later identify himself as Goldstein, and satisfy the police about his movements and whereabouts around the time of the murder. She went out again just after one o'clock to see what the commotion was. She didn't see Goldstein on that occasion, did she? Therefore, he was the only man she had seen pass through the street when she had previously been outside, i.e. at some point between 12.30 and 1am, but closer to 1am if it was just before she turned in. Just the one man passing, when she happened to be out on her doorstep. It doesn't get much simpler than that - unless you really, really want it to be complicated.

This implicitly assumes that Mortimer was only at her doorstep on one occasion, leading up to the murder. This assumption is not justified. Mortimer's own words combined with other evidence suggests that she was first outside not long after 12:30, and that she remained there nearly the whole time, before seeing Goldstein at close to 1am. This suggests she were at the door in an on-off-on manner. Consequently, we cannot say what period 'previously' refers to. So if she had indeed been in a position to see anything more than once, the question then becomes; previous to what? At this point, the meaning of 'previously' is uncertain, but the breakdown above should at least suggest that she did not use the word 'previously' in a redundant manner. The only way we could resolve this ambiguity, is by turning to other evidence. Here is that evidence ...

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
...
He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

No such assumption needed on my part. Fanny could have been in and out every few minutes for all the difference it would make to her only sighting of a man in the street, who happened to be Goldstein. If she had seen this same man on two occasions, or if the police had found her testimony ambiguous in that regard, this would surely have come out in the wash, and Goldstein would have been grilled accordingly. It didn't happen.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any doubts that the local police might have had about Schwartz story could have originated from Pipeman had they located and interviewed him of course. He and Schwartz might have viewed the incident differently with Schwartz seeing aggression where Pipeman saw drunken horseplay perhaps? And with Fanny’s statement they might have considered the possibility that Schwartz had seen an incident unconnected to the Stride murder that might have occurred at an earlier time. Perhaps around or before 12.30 just before Smith passed along Berner Street especially if Schwartz was simply estimating the time and he had no way of being in a position to confirm it?

Abberline might have been more impressed by Schwartz version than Pipeman’s and he could been right or wrong.

But however we evaluate what we know and however we interpret the timing discrepancies, to suggest that Schwartz lied about being present then we have to consider and assess the actual likelihood of this happening and when we do that the doubts begin to pile up so heavily that when we view them as a list I fail to see how the possibility can carry any weight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there was someone else in the street; Pipeman. And there are tantalizing suggestions that Pipeman may have been identified, in which case, Schwartz's account would have been corroborated (by which I mean the events not Schwartz's interpretation of the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman - the Lipski stuff).

Sadly for us, the information we have is only suggestive that Pipeman was identified and interviewed, and this is just another one of those times where the police knew more than we do, but we cannot be sure of what that "more" consisted of. But regardless, there was someone else in the street at the time and while we don't have it recorded what their version of the events were it is possible the police did. And if they did, it would have been recorded somewhere at that time. Uncovering that in some misplaced document would be a fantastic discovery. Sigh. If I'm going to be making wishes, I want a pony too.

- Jeff

Fair point of course Jeff. As you say, the possibility at least exists that they did indeed locate Pipeman who confirmed Schwartz story.

Good luck with the pony Jeff.

[GBinOz]

I, too, would be interested in seeing you lay out a time line, with or without actual times (your preference) of how you envision the events occurring and how all the pieces fit together. It's often difficult to piece them together to reflect your "big picture" when the ideas are presented scattered over multiple threads. Particularly when there are times when things seem to be contradictory. For example, you point out above that you recently considered the idea that Fanny may have seen the assault referred to by Schwartz, and yet in the post immediately preceding that one you stated that the events Schwartz described simply never happened ("No one heard it, because it never happened. Simpler." is how you phrased it). But if it never happened, then Fanny could not have witnessed them, so it's hard to reconcile your thoughts because these examples suggest that you believe the events both did and did not happen when we look over those two different posts. Clearly that can't be the case, nor do I think you believe that.

Rather, it is more likely you are exploring different lines of thought, which is certainly good practice, but it can be confusing for everyone else trying to make sense of your position in terms of the big picture.

By presenting a sequence of events, or a time line of the events, then it would go to great lengths to clarify your core position at this time - the framework on which the detailed events are hung so to speak. Obviously, we're all free to change our minds in the future so presenting your thoughts as they stand at this point in time does not mean you are forever beholden to stand fast to them.


- Jeff

Thanks Jeff,

You have laid out a reply to Andrew far better than I could have formulated. Hopefully he will be persuaded.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

George,
in #2821 I discussed two scenarios. One based roughly on Goldstein time (12:55), and the other with Goldstein replacing Schwartz at ~12:45, which is obviously not Goldstein time, or Schwartz time, or Mortimer time. It's just a scenario that attempts to make sense of the evidence. I did use police time, true, but on the other hand, Mortimer time was only mentioned to suggest that her timing fits the first scenario. So what unjustified syncing of times am I guilty of?



I recently theorized that Fanny may well have seen the assault described by Schwartz. This resulted in zero discussion. As anticipated. The same was true when I suggested that WVC patrolman may have been on Berner street in the lead-up to the murder, and may have included men whose names we know of, and/or the men described by Schwartz. This resulted in a long and interesting discussion. Not. As anticipated. The demand for any theories that step outside of "we know what happened on Berner street", is zero. Yourself being the exception. So perhaps just ask me some questions?

I, too, would be interested in seeing you lay out a time line, with or without actual times (your preference) of how you envision the events occurring and how all the pieces fit together. It's often difficult to piece them together to reflect your "big picture" when the ideas are presented scattered over multiple threads. Particularly when there are times when things seem to be contradictory. For example, you point out above that you recently considered the idea that Fanny may have seen the assault referred to by Schwartz, and yet in the post immediately preceding that one you stated that the events Schwartz described simply never happened ("No one heard it, because it never happened. Simpler." is how you phrased it). But if it never happened, then Fanny could not have witnessed them, so it's hard to reconcile your thoughts because these examples suggest that you believe the events both did and did not happen when we look over those two different posts. Clearly that can't be the case, nor do I think you believe that.

Rather, it is more likely you are exploring different lines of thought, which is certainly good practice, but it can be confusing for everyone else trying to make sense of your position in terms of the big picture.

By presenting a sequence of events, or a time line of the events, then it would go to great lengths to clarify your core position at this time - the framework on which the detailed events are hung so to speak. Obviously, we're all free to change our minds in the future so presenting your thoughts as they stand at this point in time does not mean you are forever beholden to stand fast to them.


- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

...
Faced with the two possibilities, a) unrealistic, unlikely, baseless, motiveless cover up (they happen all the time when people are murdered in the street of course) or, b) Schwartz simply saw an incident when there was no one else in the street, how can there even be any competition between the two? How much time do we waste in our lives listening to this kind of stuff. Enough is enough with this tired joke.

But there was someone else in the street; Pipeman. And there are tantalizing suggestions that Pipeman may have been identified, in which case, Schwartz's account would have been corroborated (by which I mean the events not Schwartz's interpretation of the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman - the Lipski stuff).

Sadly for us, the information we have is only suggestive that Pipeman was identified and interviewed, and this is just another one of those times where the police knew more than we do, but we cannot be sure of what that "more" consisted of. But regardless, there was someone else in the street at the time and while we don't have it recorded what their version of the events were it is possible the police did. And if they did, it would have been recorded somewhere at that time. Uncovering that in some misplaced document would be a fantastic discovery. Sigh. If I'm going to be making wishes, I want a pony too.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

If murder occurred (whether high profile or otherwise) somewhere near to where any of us lived how many of us would agree to lie about being on the spot when we weren’t? How many would be able to, just a few hours later, provide a reason for actually being there so that the police could easily check where we came from and at what time? They would also have been able to have checked the validity of the reason for our presence there. Then of course, as we weren’t actually there, how would feel about the very obvious possibility that someone might have come forward and said “well I was there and I never saw him?” And, that said, how enthusiastic would we be for such a lie when would know that it placed us at the scene of the murder without anyone to say “yes, I saw him there and he wasn’t physically involved in the incident.” Added to this how comfortable would the person that put you up to this lie feel? Knowing that under pressure from police questioning you might slip up or even just admit that you were coerced to lie.

Yet we keep being asked to accept this preposterous nonsense. And the only reason that this silliness has been put forward is because some of the timings don’t exactly match up. No matter how many times it’s shown that, by employing a margin for error, that there are no issues some still prefer to dive straight into cover up and conspiracy no matter how far-fetched, baseless and ridiculous, rather than accept the very obvious, the very plausible and the very grounded explanation that times shouldn’t be taken exactly. That we need to make allowances. Just as we need to make allowances for the various minor differences in press report. These differences are simply par for the course and we would be more surprised if they didn’t exist.

Faced with the two possibilities, a) unrealistic, unlikely, baseless, motiveless cover up (they happen all the time when people are murdered in the street of course) or, b) Schwartz simply saw an incident when there was no one else in the street, how can there even be any competition between the two? How much time do we waste in our lives listening to this kind of stuff. Enough is enough with this tired joke.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure if the police would blend witness times like that, just as they do not blend witness descriptions (in case it wasn't the same bloke). Whatever the case, the timeline you describe here has Mortimer at her doorstep by 12:45, and midway between then and 1am, she sees Goldstein. That was just before she turned in. Sounds about right to me. See how easy it is when the actor is excluded?

Neither scenario excludes Schwartz. He was there. It’s a fixed point in any scenario.

All we know is she said she'd just gone indoors. So let's just call it 'no more than 5 minutes', and accept that she was therefore at her open door until that amount of time before the arrival of Diemschitz.

No. We work Fanny’s story around Schwartz. We don’t know exactly what time either of them were present. We just know that they weren’t present at the same time.

Because in the scenario that Goldstein passes at 12:45, the pony and cart cannot come along more a few minutes later. It is not realistic to have Schwartz and Brown in the intervening timespan.

Yes it is. Time gap unknown. Ignore times and just go on order of events. The only question is was Schwartz before Fanny went onto her doorstep or after she went back inside. It could have been either.


A careful reading of Brown suggests that he did not see the couple until returning home. This suggests that the couple he saw had arrived at the spot while he was in the chandlers shop. That was at about 12:45. What did the young woman say ...?

She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

It fits like a hand in a glove, when allowing for a very reasonable change of size.



It's always necessary to keep in mind that Spooner stated that the victim appeared to be bleeding, when he was examining. There was also huge blood loss by that time. Was she murdered at 12:45, or more like midway between 12:45 and 1am?

You can very obviously post what you like but I have no interest in fantasies. Schwartz was there. I’m not interested in any scenario which seeks to conveniently airbrush him. He was there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apart from the "few seconds" nonsense, this argument fails the moment it is recognized that people were indeed on the street, who could have proven him a liar then, as they do now ...

DN: A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street about 20 yards away before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.



It is also mentioned in The Echo and The People (quoted recently). The report differs from Schwartz in two important respects. The estimated age of the man is different, and in contrast to the report, Schwartz very definitely "took notice of it". This suggests that the statement the report refers to, came from someone other than Schwartz. Either that or Schwartz gave not two but three versions of his story.

As is the case with the man pursued report in the Echo, why is that the moment the Schwartzian world threatens to come into contact with the real world, the Schwartzists want nothing to do with it?



No one heard it, because it never happened. Simpler.



So part of the definition of knowing what happened on Berner street, includes not knowing who the murderer was! Here am I thinking that the identity of the murderer is the most important bit. Apparently not.

I know that you object to the ‘few seconds’ but of course that’s only because you’ve sought to portray it as if Schwartz pulled up a chair to watch a dress rehearsal for Twelfth Night. Schwartz walked behind BS man along Berner Street. He saw him stop and talk to Stride. It’s impossible that it took more than a few seconds. Why argue against the obvious?

’Schwartzists and Schwartzians.’ Id say that it’s better than being a ‘bollocksian?’

No one heard a short, not very loud incident because there was no one in the street at the time. Reality is such a scary concept for the conspiracy theorist. Schwartz was there. The incident clearly occurred. You can look at 5000 different newspaper reports, differently worded and create all kinds of scenarios about the absence of a piece of punctuation if that’s what you enjoy but most of us find it tedious, pointless and embarrassing.

[FrankO]

People are speculating on all sorts of things on this forum, all the time. It's only when the speculation gets into uncomfortable territory, that this sort of comment is made.

I don't see why speculation would get uncomfortable, Andrew. I cerainly don't feel it like that. Again, I feel that speculation when there's nothing to go on is rather useless as we will never know which speculative direction is the correct or false one. It's like walking blind-folded in a place you don't know.

Yet regardless of the discomfort, we should be willing to explain how on earth we could go from ...

As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

and ...

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

to this ...

Lamb: I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

and ...

Blackwell: The left hand was lying on the ground and was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper.

The evidence of Schwartz is incompatible with the evidence of Lamb and Blackwell.

There are 2 types of speculative scenarios: one in which Mr. Broad Shoulders is also Stride's killer and one in which he's not. There's no way for us to determine which is the correct one, however incompatible Schwartz's evidence might be with that of Lamb and Blackwell.

And having said any of those things, how did she end up where she did, in the state she was found in, including her apparently expertly cut throat, without anyone hearing a thing, by an apparently half-drunk man who a few seconds before had supposedly yelled a racial epithet to some random across the street?

However strongly we might believe that Schwartz's account was fabricated, we can't with any kind of certainty say it was and there's, in fact, no reason why it couldn't have happened in reality.

[FrankO]

Could have been any of the three possibilities. I would vote for the first. A remonstration for causing her to fall down.

Hi George,

I tend to agree, mainly because she was engaged in a squabble of sorts with Mr. Broad Shoulders whilst Schwartz was just a passer-by.

Your new avatar has a certain roguish look that makes one wonder what you might have done that you think you have gotten away with.

Thanks George. You may well be right about that, although I have no recollection of that photo being taken - and that will be because I was only about 2 years old.

Cheers,
Frank

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Or…..Goldstein gave an approximate time as he was unsure - Mortimer felt that she’d gone onto her doorstep around 12.45 - Diemschitz said that he discovered the body at 1.00 (so the ‘disturbance/noise would have occurred as people gathered in the yard followed by a search for a Constable - so just after 1.00) - Goldstein passed between Fanny going onto her doorstep (12.45) and the disturbance (just after 1.00) - therefore an estimate of 1.00 in Swanson’s report.

I'm not sure if the police would blend witness times like that, just as they do not blend witness descriptions (in case it wasn't the same bloke). Whatever the case, the timeline you describe here has Mortimer at her doorstep by 12:45, and midway between then and 1am, she sees Goldstein. That was just before she turned in. Sounds about right to me. See how easy it is when the actor is excluded?

But again we have an estimation - she’d just gone indoors (so she hadn’t been inside long, but how long is long. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 minutes? Who knows? - then she was ‘preparing for bed (does that mean that she was getting undressed and was partially undressed and had to redress? What did ‘preparing’ for bed entail? People today might do various things like check the windows and doors are shut, switch the heating off, making a sandwich for her husband to take to work, I’m not suggesting that Fanny did any of these things but how can we know how long ‘preparing’,for bed might have taken. We don’t know.

All we know is she said she'd just gone indoors. So let's just call it 'no more than 5 minutes', and accept that she was therefore at her open door until that amount of time before the arrival of Diemschitz.

Why do we need to move Brown especially when we can’t put exact times to any of the witnesses?

Because in the scenario that Goldstein passes at 12:45, the pony and cart cannot come along more a few minutes later. It is not realistic to have Schwartz and Brown in the intervening timespan.

Smith passes 12.30-12.35 and sees the couple - the couple immediately move and stand talking just around the corner in Fairclough Street (out of sight to anyone in Berner Street) - Fanny comes onto her doorstep around 12.35 and sees Goldstein pass - 12.40-12.45 Brown goes to the shop and sees the couple as he passes - Mortimer goes back indoors 12.45 or maybe just before- the man leaves and Stride moves to the gateway at 12.45 or just after - Schwartz passes at 12.45 or just after.

A careful reading of Brown suggests that he did not see the couple until returning home. This suggests that the couple he saw had arrived at the spot while he was in the chandlers shop. That was at about 12:45. What did the young woman say ...?

She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

It fits like a hand in a glove, when allowing for a very reasonable change of size.

Smith passes 12.30-12.35 and sees the couple - the couple immediately move and stand talking just around the corner in Fairclough Street (out of sight to anyone in Berner Street) - 12.40-1245 Brown goes to the shop and sees the couple as he passes - the man leaves and Stride moves to the gateway just before 12.45 - Schwartz passes at just after 12.45 - Fanny comes onto her doorstep at around 12.45 and sees Goldstein pass - Fanny goes back inside around 12.55.

It's always necessary to keep in mind that Spooner stated that the victim appeared to be bleeding, when he was examining. There was also huge blood loss by that time. Was she murdered at 12:45, or more like midway between 12:45 and 1am?